Intermittent granulocyte and monocyte apheresis versus mercaptopurine for maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis: a pilot study

GADECCU 2022 Guideline for the treatment of Ulcerative Colitis. Adaptation and updating of the GETECCU 2020 Guideline

INTRODUCTION

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease that compromises the colon, affecting the quality of life of individuals of any age. In practice, there is a wide spectrum of clinical situations. The advances made in the physio pathogenesis of UC have allowed the development of new, more effective and safer therapeutic agents.

OBJECTIVES

To update and expand the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of relevant treatments for remission induction and maintenance after a mild, moderate or severe flare of UC.

RECIPIENTS

Gastroenterologists, coloproctologists, general practitioners, family physicians and others health professionals, interested in the treatment of UC.

METHODOLOGY

GADECCU authorities obtained authorization from GETECCU to adapt and update the GETECCU 2020 Guide for the treatment of UC. Prepared with GRADE methodology. A team was formed that included authors, a panel of experts, a nurse and a patient, methodological experts, and external reviewers. GRADE methodology was used with the new information.

RESULTS

A 118-page document was prepared with the 44 GADECCU 2022 recommendations, for different clinical situations and therapeutic options, according to levels of evidence. A section was added with the new molecules that are about to be available.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline has been made in order to facilitate decision-making regarding the treatment of UC, adapting and updating the guide prepared by GETECCU in the year 2020.

GETECCU 2020 guidelines for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Developed using the GRADE approach

INTRODUCTION

Since the first edition of the Guidelines was published in 2013, much information has been generated around the treatment of ulcerative colitis, and new drugs and action protocols have been introduced. Clinical practice has changed substantially, warranting new approaches and a comprehensive review and update of the evidence.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Once again, we used the GRADE approach, supported by an electronic tool (https://gradepro.org). The clinical scenarios are the same as in the previous version (induction and maintenance in severe and mild-moderate flare-ups), as are the variables and their evaluation. However, in the updated guidelines, three questions have been deleted, 14 added and 30 maintained, making a total of 44 clinical questions. After an exhaustive review of the evidence, the recommendations are now updated.

RESULTS

Of the 44 questions analysed, no recommendation could be established in two due to the very low quality of the evidence, while in the other 42, based on different degrees of quality of evidence, recommendations were made according to the GRADE system. In 25 of these questions the final recommendation is strongly in favour, in six strongly against, in seven weakly in favour and in four weakly against. According to the scenarios and recommendations, six algorithms are proposed as a simple guide for practical decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this update of the 2013 guidelines is to provide answers, based on the GRADE approach, to the different questions we ask ourselves daily when deciding the most appropriate treatment for our patients with ulcerative colitis in the different clinical scenarios.

Use of granulocyte/monocytapheresis in ulcerative colitis: A practical review from a European perspective

Half of the patients with ulcerative colitis require at least one course of systemic corticosteroids in their lifetime. Approximately 75% of these patients will also require immunosuppressive drugs (i.e., thiopurines or biological agents) in the mid-term to avoid colectomy. Immunosuppressive drugs raise some concerns due to an increased risk of serious and opportunistic infections and cancer, particularly in elderly and co-morbid patients, underlining the unmet need for safer alternative therapies. Granulocyte/monocytapheresis (GMA), a CE-marked, non-pharmacological procedure for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (among other immune-mediated diseases), remains the only therapy targeting neutrophils, the hallmark of pathology in ulcerative colitis. GMA has proven its efficacy in different clinical scenarios and shows an excellent and unique safety profile. In spite of being a first line therapy in Japan, GMA use is still limited to a small number of centres and countries in Europe. In this article, we aim to give an overview from a European perspective of the mechanism of action, recent clinical data on efficacy and practical aspects for the use of GMA in ulcerative colitis.

Selective granulocyte and monocyte apheresis in inflammatory bowel disease: Its past, present and future

The etiology and pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, are not fully understood so far. Therefore, IBD still remains incurable despite the fact that significant progress has been achieved in recent years in its treatment with innovative medicine. About 20 years ago, selective granulocyte and monocyte apheresis (GMA) was invented in Japan and later approved by the Japanese health authority for IBD treatment. From then on this technique was extensively used for IBD patients in Japan and later in Europe. Clinical trials from Japan and European countries have verified the effectiveness and safety of GMA therapy in patients with IBD. In 2013, GMA therapy was approved by China State Food and Drug Administration for therapeutic use for the Chinese IBD patients. However, GMA therapy has not been extensively used in China, although a few clinical studies also showed that it was effective in clinical and endoscopic induction of remission in Chinese IBD patients with a high safety profile. This article reviews past history, present clinical application as well as the future prospective of GMA therapy for patients with IBD.

Efficacy of apheresis as maintenance therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis in an open-label prospective multicenter randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Apheresis therapy involves the selective removal of leukocytes and is used to induce remission in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of apheresis therapy for maintaining UC remission.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomised-control trial of patients with remitting UC induced by granulocyte and monocyte adsorption apheresis or leukocytapheresis. Patients were randomly assigned to the apheresis group (twice per month for 12 months) or the control group (no apheresis treatment) using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint was the rate of cumulative clinical remission (Mayo score ≤ 2) at 12 months. The secondary endpoints were the rates of clinical remission, endoscopic remission, and complete endoscopic remission at 12 months.

RESULTS

Between March 2013 and March 2017, 164 patients were enrolled. The cumulative remission rate at 12 months was 46.6% in the apheresis group and 36.4% in the control group (p = 0.1621). The rate of endoscopic remission at 12 months was significantly higher in the apheresis group than in the control group (42.5% vs. 25.9%) p = 0.0480). The rate of clinical remission (47.5% vs.32.1%, p = 0.0540) and complete endoscopic remission (33.8% vs.19.8%, p = 0.0513) tended to be higher in the apheresis than in the control group; however, the difference was not significant. No severe adverse events were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Apheresis was well tolerated as maintenance therapy for UC although the cumulative clinical remission rate at 12 months was comparable between the apheresis and control groups.

Adsorptive Granulocyte and Monocyte Apheresis in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: The First Multicenter Study in China

Background/Aims

Patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC) have elevated levels of activated myeloid-derived leukocytes as a source of inflammatory cytokines. The selective depletion of these leukocytes by adsorptive granulocyte/monocyte apheresis (GMA) with an Adacolumn should alleviate inflammation, promote remission and enhance drug efficacy. However, studies have reported contrasting efficacy outcomes based on patients' baseline demographic variables. This study was undertaken to understand the demographic features of GMA responders and nonresponders.

Methods

This was a multicenter study in China involving four institutions and 34 patients with active UC. Baseline conventional medications were continued without changing the dosage. The treatment efficacy was evaluated based on the endoscopic activity index and the Mayo score.

Results

Thirty of the 34 patients completed all 10 GMA treatment sessions. The overall efficacy rate was 70.59%. The receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that the area under the curve was approximately 0.766 for a Mayo score of ≤5.5 with 0.273 specificity and 0.857 sensitivity (Youden index, 0.584) for GMA responders. No GMA-related serious adverse events were observed.

Conclusions

The overall efficacy of GMA in patients with active UC who were taking first-line medications or were corticosteroid refractory was encouraging. Additionally, GMA was well tolerated and had a good safety profile.

Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Maintenance of remission is a major issue in inflammatory bowel disease. In ulcerative colitis, the evidence for the effectiveness of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the maintenance of remission is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to 30 July 2015. Both full randomized controlled trials and associated abstracts were included.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of at least 12 months duration that compared azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine with placebo or standard maintenance therapy (e.g. mesalazine) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data using standard forms. Disagreements were solved by consensus including a third author. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. Analyses were performed separately by type of control (placebo, or active comparator). Pooled risk ratios were calculated based on the fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was shown. The GRADE approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for pooled outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies including 302 patients with ulcerative colitis were included in the review. The risk of bias was high in three of the studies due to lack of blinding. Azathioprine was shown to be significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of remission. Fourty-four per cent (51/115) of azathioprine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 65% (76/117) of placebo patients (4 studies, 232 patients; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome as low due to risk of bias and imprecision (sparse data). Two trials that compared 6-mercaptopurine to mesalazine, or azathioprine to sulfasalazine showed significant heterogeneity and thus were not pooled. Fifty per cent (7/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 100% (8/8) of mesalazine patients (1 study, 22 patients; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.90). Fifty-eight per cent (7/12) of azathioprine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 38% (5/13) of sulfasalazine patients (1 study, 25 patients; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.50). One small study found that 6-mercaptopurine was superior to methotrexate for maintenance of remission. In the study, 50% (7/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients and 92% (11/12) of methotrexate patients failed to maintain remission (1 study, 26 patients; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.95). One very small study compared azathioprine with cyclosporin and found that there was no significant difference between patients failing remission on azathioprine (50%, 4/8) or cyclosporin (62.5%, 5/8) (1 study, 16 patients, RR 0.80 95% CI 0.33 to 1.92). When placebo-controlled studies were pooled with aminosalicylate-comparator studies to assess adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between azathioprine and control in the incidence of adverse events. Nine per cent (11/127) of azathioprine patients experienced at least one adverse event compared to 2% (3/130) of placebo patients (5 studies, 257 patients; RR 2.82, 95% CI 0.99 to 8.01). Patients receiving azathioprine were at significantly increased risk of withdrawing due to adverse events. Eight per cent (8/101) of azathioprine patients withdrew due to adverse events compared to 0% (0/98) of control patients (5 studies, 199 patients; RR 5.43, 95% CI 1.02 to 28.75). Adverse events related to study medication included acute pancreatitis (3 cases, plus 1 case on cyclosporin) and significant bone marrow suppression (5 cases). Deaths, opportunistic infection or neoplasia were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Azathioprine therapy appears to be more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine may be effective as maintenance therapy for patients who have failed or cannot tolerate mesalazine or sulfasalazine and for patients who require repeated courses of steroids. More research is needed to evaluate superiority over standard maintenance therapy, especially in the light of a potential for adverse events from azathioprine. This review updates the existing review of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis which was published in the Cochrane Library (September 2012).

Direct and indirect healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with ulcerative colitis in a privately-insured employed population in the US

OBJECTIVE

To assess direct and indirect healthcare resource utilization and costs of privately insured US employees with ulcerative colitis (UC) from a societal perspective.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Employees aged 18-64 with ≥ 2 UC diagnoses and no more than one diagnosis of Crohn's disease (CD) were identified from a large, de-identified, private insurance US claims database from January 1, 2005 through March 31, 2013. Patients with UC were matched 1:1 to non-IBD controls based on demographics and index date (a randomly selected UC diagnosis). All patients were required to have continuous eligibility for ≥ 1 year before (baseline period) and after (study period) the index date. Descriptive analyses compared baseline characteristics and study period outcomes. Multivariate cost analysis adjusted for baseline comorbidities. Sub-group analyses compared patients with moderate-to-severe UC with matched controls.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs (2013 US dollars) were measured from a societal perspective, which included direct (patient and payer costs) and indirect (lost wages because of time away from work) costs.

RESULTS

Patients with UC (n = 4314; mean age = 45.1 years, 63.6% male) had significantly higher baseline comorbidity rates compared with controls. In the study period, significantly more patients with UC (p < 0.0001) had higher hospitalization rates (16.9% vs 6.2%), emergency department visits (31.1% vs 22.0%), prescription drug use (95.3% vs 72.0%), and work loss (100% vs 81.4%). Patients with UC also had significantly higher adjusted total direct ($15,548 vs $4812) and indirect costs ($4125 vs $1961). Patients with moderate-to-severe UC (n = 1728) had significantly (p < 0.0001) higher hospitalization rates (26.5% vs 6.2%) and adjusted total direct ($23,085 vs $4932) and indirect costs ($5666 vs $1960).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with UC had higher resource utilization and direct and indirect costs compared with matched controls. The excess burden was greatest in patients with moderate-to-severe UC.

Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Maintenance of remission is a major issue in inflammatory bowel disease. In ulcerative colitis, the evidence for the effectiveness of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the maintenance of remission is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2012. A manual search was also performed using references from these articles as well as review articles, and proceedings from major gastrointestinal meetings. Authors of maintenance trials were asked about unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of at least 12 months duration that compared azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine with placebo or standard maintenance therapy (e.g. mesalazine) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data using standard forms. Disagreements were solved by consensus including a third author. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. Analyses were performed separately by type of control (placebo, or active comparator). Pooled risk ratios were calculated based on the fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was shown. The GRADE approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for pooled outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies including 286 patients with ulcerative colitis were included in the review. The risk of bias was high in three of the studies due to lack of blinding. Azathioprine was shown to be significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of remission. Fourty-four per cent (51/115) of azathioprine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 65% (76/117) of placebo patients (4 studies, 232 patients; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome as low due to risk of bias and imprecision (sparse data). Two trials that compared 6-mercaptopurine to mesalazine, or azathioprine to sulfasalazine showed significant heterogeneity and thus were not pooled. Fifty per cent (7/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 100% (8/8) of mesalamine patients (1 study, 22 patients; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.90). Fifty-eight per cent (7/12) of azathioprine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 38% (5/13) of sulfasalazine patients (1 study, 25 patients; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.50). One small study found that 6-mercaptopurine was superior to methotrexate for maintenance of remission. In the study, 50% (7/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients and 92% (11/12) of methotrexate patients failed to maintain remission (1 study, 26 patients; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.95). All of the studies which used active comparators were open label. When placebo and active comparator studies were pooled to assess adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between azathioprine and control in the incidence of adverse events. Nine per cent (11/127) of azathioprine patients experienced at least one adverse event compared to 2% (3/130) of placebo patients (5 studies, 257 patients; RR 2.82, 95% CI 0.99 to 8.01). Patients receiving azathioprine were at significantly increased risk of withdrawing due to adverse events. Eight per cent (8/101) of azathioprine patients withdrew due to adverse events compared to 0% (0/98) of control patients (5 studies, 199 patients; RR 5.43, 95% CI 1.02 to 28.75). Adverse events related to study medication included acute pancreatitis (3 cases) and significant bone marrow suppression (5 cases). Deaths, opportunistic infection or neoplasia were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Azathioprine therapy appears to be more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine may be effective as maintenance therapy for patients who have failed or cannot tolerate mesalazine or sulfasalazine and for patients who require repeated courses of steroids. More research is needed to evaluate superiority over standard maintenance therapy, especially in the light of a potential for adverse events from azathioprine. This review updates the existing review of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis which was published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2007).